I have said before that I am not aiming to write here about HBD, or race relations, or immigration, or really any kind of current event. What interests me is the fundamental workings of leftism- what the talk radio crowd calls “socialism” and Moldbug forthrightly calls “communism”. The effects of this kind of thought are clear everywhere, and to discuss them endlessly gets kind of pointless to me. I’m old though and have been reading about this stuff for close to four decades.

But inevitably the discussion of the way things are comes around to the behavior and status of black people. As I have said leftism does not need black people at all, but it makes good use of them. What would America be like, without any black people?

Anybody who was paying attention in high school history will remember that it was the invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney that made cotton cultivation in the South profitable on a large scale. Let’s assume though that plantation agriculture was never economically feasible in North America, and few or no black Africans were imported as laborers. There is probably some number below which, even if there had been African slave labor, it would never have become a serious issue. But let’s say zero for our thought experiment.

There would not have been any Civil War, although there would have been significant sectional antagonisms. The South certainly didn’t care for tariffs or other nationalist economic policies benefiting the North; but these issues weren’t worth fighting over and absent plantation agriculture there may have been more manufacturing in the South anyway. Birmingham was a steel town and there were factories in the South.

Hunter Wallace pointed out that civil rights forced working class whites to side with business interests rather than fight strictly for their own economic interests. This fits with my thesis that what we call politics in the US is mostly a struggle for power between lower-class and upper-class whites and race is only a colorful sideshow.

If you haven’t read everything I have written I make a distinction between what I call “white socialism”- government intervention to help lower-class traditionalists, and “red socialism” which is designed to help the “oppressed”, once defined by Marxists as industrial workers but redefined more and more through the 20th century as racial minorities, criminals, and social deviants. Conservatives like to claim Nazis and other fascist groups are really left-wing, because they are socialist, but this is a meaningless distinction, and shows the limit of left/right thinking. American socialism is a careful fusion of these that you might call “blue” socialism, but it’s fundamentally red in nature.

The identification of the South with conservative politics is quite accidental, and mostly a matter of moral issues. America’s greatest white socialist, Huey Long, was from Louisiana. The nation’s number one evangelical politician, Mike Huckabee, is a Republican but other than his stance on abortion could easily be a Massachusetts congressman.

White socialism just wants some money. Red socialism believes that traditional society is rotten to the core and must be completely gutted. The status of blacks in the US- the idea that the poorness and oppression of blacks shows that America is really completely corrupt and evil and not at all a free and just place- is the driving force behind red socialism in America. Other groups identify with this- Jews and gays- but their problems are pretty minor compared to what we see with blacks.

An America without black people would have less red socialism, probably almost none. But it would have more white socialism. Lower-class whites would not need to work with businesses to hold back a red socialist government. On top of this the country would be much more prosperous, because blacks would not be draining the treasury, destroying cities and forcing white people to buy houses in the suburbs and cars to commute to work.

I’m a city boy. I love being in town and being able to walk most places. I live in a traditional, ethnic, blue-collar neighborhood which despite gentrification is still significantly populated by members of my own ethnic group. An older cousin of mine bought an old house here back in the early 70’s, and painstakingly restored it. Then busing came, he had kids, and he moved to the suburbs. Busing is gone, but the destruction of this way of life is pretty much complete in most US cities.

Liberals wish America was like Europe- people living in dense neighborhoods, taking public transportation, voting for the Labor Party. Ironically it’s their negrophilia which has prevented this from happening. My neighborhood is 90% white, and fairly safe. The bus system is a little dicey. The kind of society liberals want is quite natural to whites, but simply impossible with any significant number of blacks around.

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.

4 Responses to An America Without Black People

Will Europe also go in the cars + suburbs direction? Is it already? I know Paris (and other Euro cities?) is different from US cities in that it’s the burbs that are poorer. I guess NYC is a little like that, having an affluent core (Manhattan).

I’m not familiar with the urban geography of Europe. I think it is more like NYC in having density, and affluent or middle-class white areas next to ghetto immigrant areas, but with some kind of division maintained.

The more extremely conservative and religious a society is, the more dysfunctional it seems to become.

Contrary to the repeated slogans of asserted “self-evident truths” within my very conservative upbringing, I’ve discovered that the economic, historical and sociological data shows that the best answer is a moderate combination of conservatism, liberalism and libertarianism.

See below much evidence of poor performance from the extreme conservatism that has taken over the United States since the early 1980s (in contrast to moderate Republican policies like those of Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford).